Tuesday,
January 15, 2013. Chaos and violence continue, a Sunni politicians is
assassinated by a suicide bomber, Nouri al-Maliki tries to distort the
details of the death of his political rival, whispers in Iraq move to
Iran as the chatter is that the United States intends to split Iraq into
three sections, and more.

Maureen Dowd is many things -- some good, some bad -- but she's rarely as boring as Bob. Dowd wrote about a White House photo that's been getting a great deal of press attention of late. You can see it at Third in "The real War on Women" and Ava and I covered the photo in "TV: Screw Little Mika." Idiot Bob quotes David Gregory from Sunday'sMeet The Press. Ava and I had to quote that broadcast in our piece -- that we wrote two days ago -- but we didn't go with David Gregory, we went with Andrea Mitchell explaining the photo to the Meet The Press panel.

Andrea
Mitchell: Let me just say that was a White House photo. That picture
was taken by the president's photographer, and that indicated who was
around him when he was dealing with the fiscal cliff negotiations.
That's what that picture represented. At the highest levels of the White
House and in the cabinet you have men and they are white men. Now, the
numbers, we can play the numbers game, but as another Democratic
president said during a transition in 1992, "You bean counters, you
women's groups who are, you know, counting heads, I'm going to fill
these jobs." But they were at lower levels. The fact is that men help
elect the president. Women voted for the president in the greatest
numbers, but the men on his team were the predominant people. You have
two women who are the White House deputy chiefs of staff --- Nancy --
Ann DeParle is leaving this week -- but two women, and neither of them
are being mentioned in any of these trial balloons to replace Jack
Lew. And that's why women, including the women in the White House, I've
got to tell you, I wrote a story about this this week, and I did not get
one complaint. I get lots of complaints from the White House about
things that I say and do. And, you know, sometimes it's correct,
sometimes I have to correct something, but not one person, and I have
talked to several people inside the White House, women, and they said,
"No, we didn't have any problem with what you wrote about this week."
The women are not happy.

Somerby
doesn't quote Andrea. Quoting her would expose the fallacy of his
column. The picture is about who's in the room when the decisions are
made. Andrea Mitchell, Soledad O'Brien, Ruth Marcus
and many others have managed to explain the point that escapes
Somerby. It's interesting because they all made points about diversity
-- they all made points about all women and they also made points about
men of color. Somerby ignores the men of color aspect. We're opening
with this to make two main points.

First, I don't give a damn what you did four years ago if you think that excuses what you do today. It doesn't.

You
need to do better than you did four years ago or you need to retire. I
don't care what your business is, what your profession is. You strive
for better or you walk away. If your the President of the United
States, you damn well better do better than you did before. So this
idea that we can excuse today's choices because of something (minor)
that was done four years ago? It doesn't cut it. On Sunday's Meet The Press,
Cory Booker said people should wait and see what unfolds. That's a
valid viewpoint. But it's not one that's going to change anything, but
it is a viewpoint. You want to ensure women get on the Cabinet this
year? You call out the lack of women right now while it can put some
pressuer on Barack Obama and influence his selections. NOW has an online letter you can add your name to.

Somerby attacks Dowd because Dowd objected to Susan Rice for Secretary of State. So what?

I'm
sorry, is there only one woman that can be nominated? What world does
an idiot like Bob Somerby live in? Here are three names: Zoe Baird,
Kima Wood and Janet Reno.

Those three women
are? Bill Clinton's nominees for Attorney General. Baird and Wood would
both withdraw their names for the post. The third choices was Janet
Reno who was confirmed.

Because one woman is
not the choice for a post does not mean that no woman is a choice. Bob
Somerby seems to think women were being done a favor with Susan Rice
and, having not been sufficiently dutiful, we now get nothing. No,
that's not how it works unless you're a sick, twisted, sexist pig like
Bob Somerby. Can you imagine if the same 'logic' were applied to male
nominees? Brett McGurk's failure as Barack's 2012 nominee for US
Ambassador to Iraq did not prevent Barack from coming up with the name
of yet another man (Robert Beecroft).

Can
you imagine that? If a male nominee not going through or being 'Borked"
meant that no other man was nominated? No, I can't imagine that either
because it just doesn't happen. Dowd can oppose any woman she wants
and she can still object to the lack of women being nominated. it's all
apparently too complicated for Bob Somerby.

Got a chip upon your shoulder, I just knocked it off

Show me what you're gonna do, I ain't 'bout to run

You have just run out of ammunition,

Shootin' blanks now, you son of a gun

-- "Son of a Gun," written by James Harris III, Terry Lewis, Janet Jackson and Carly Simon, performed by Janet Jackson, featuring Missy Elliott with Carly Simon, first appears on Janet's All For You

SCHIEFFER:
And, good morning, again. And we're going to begin with the senior
Republican on the Armed Services Committee, Senator John McCain.
Senator, thanks for being with us this morning. Well, the president made
it pretty clear on Friday, we're leaving Afghanistan, and perhaps
sooner than some expected. And every report you hear from behind the
scenes is, we're going to keep very, very few people there. What do you
make of this? What's your take on all of this?

SEN.
JOHN MCCAIN (R-AZ), ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE: Well, it's a one of a
series of decisions the president has made basically overruling his
military advisers. So whether it be in Iraq, which is now unraveling
very significantly, or whether it be the decisions about a surge and how
many and how soon they leave. There's a series of decisions, all of
which the president and the vice president have overruled our military
leaders and their advice and counsel, which is the president's right to
do. But each time I believe that it has ensured the risk of failure. I
think there's a very, very great risk now that with the president's
announcement that they are basically going to be out, that the Afghans
will not be able to effectively counter what still remains a significant
Taliban and significantly discordant situation in both Afghanistan and
across the border in Pakistan. So I think you are probably going to see
an unraveling gradually. I think you're going to be -- there's only
one Iraq -- Afghan brigade that is capable of acting independently.
These forces need air support, intelligence, all of the kinds of
logistics and other support that is necessary to be effective. Fighting
forces, they're not going to have that, and so I am much less than
optimistic about this eventual outcome. But when you look at the Middle
East, look at what has happened at Iraq, look at what has happened in
Syria, the United States no longer leading from behind, waiting from
behind. And then you look at the decisions concerning Afghanistan, you
can understand why people throughout the region believe the United
States is withdrawing, and that is not good for the region.

1)
Iraq: Better known to most Americans these days as
"NotOurProblemAnymoreistan," Iraq is in for one rough year – which is
really saying something. The federal system set up following the U.S.
invasion is splitting apart at the country's regional and sectarian
seams, and upcoming provincial elections in the spring will only
exacerbate tensions.In recent weeks, a national protest
movement against the ineffective Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has
spread, but frustration with the status quo is about the only unifying
element among the Sunni, Shia, and Kurdish elements taking part. In
2013, expect the rift between the cash-strapped government in Baghdad
and the oil-rich autonomous Kurdish region in the North to reach a
breaking point. Also, while much is said of the Sunni-Shia divide, keep
an eye on rifts within the Shia majority, which may not only cast out
Maliki, but also topple the regime and send everyone back to the
streets to "re-negotiate" the political order…

As
Iraq falls apart the White House -- out of guilt or stupidity --
doesn't even try to take part in the conversation. That's great.
They'll allow John McCain to define the terms of the discussion. And
they'll allow various other interested parties to define the terms.

One
terms Iraqis are being exposed to these days is "division." That the
US government wants (again wants) to divide Iraq into three parts.
Saturday, the Ahlul Bayt News Agency reported:

According
to this source, who spoke in condition of anonymity, the objective of
the meetings was fulfillment of some Iraqi political figures, namely the
declaration of a Sunny Autonomous Region in Iraq.

"Topics
of the meeting between Iraqi political figures and US officials were
declaration of independence in Al-Anbar, Mosul, Saladin, and Diyala
provinces," he added.

Today the Iraq Times reports
that the US wants to divide Iraq into three parts and sees that as the
best answer to the country's ongoing crises. Those aren't the only
articles covering this rumor. Many articles note Vice President Joe
Biden once proposed a federation (three independent parts making up
Iraq). You'd think someone at the White House would be in charge of
following what's being said in the media and that they'd have some sort
of response to it. You'd think that, maybe hope for it. But they just
don't care.

It would appear the Ministry of Defense is attempting to distort the death. Nayla Razzouk and Kadhim Ajrash (Bloomberg News) notes
the Ministry of Defense is stating the attack came "during an
opposition demonstration." Everyone else reports that al-Essawi was on
his way to a demonstration. It matters.

The
Ministry of Defense has no minister. Nouri al-Maliki has never
nominated anyone for the post. He's saying someone's an 'acting
minister.' The Constitution recognizes no such position. To be a
minister, you have to be nominated by the prime minister and you have to
be confirmed by the Parliament. Once confirmed, to be removed, the
Parliament has to vote you out. Nouri has tried to removed a deputy
prime minister and a vice president in his second term. He had no luck
getting the votes needed in Parliament. Creating 'acting' positions
allows him to control ministries the Constitution does not put him in
charge of. If you are 'acting minister,' you are someone Nouri gave the
job to -- it would be interesting to find out what acting ministers are
being paid since they have not been confirmed by Parliament. Nouri
gave you the job and, the second you disagree with him, he can pull you
from the job. You have no protection you have no power. Nouri was
supposed to name a full Cabinet -- as the Constitution requires -- to
move from prime minister-designate (November 2010) to prime minister
(December 2010). However, the Erbil Agreement (a US government brokered
contract) gave him a second term. The voters didn't, the Constiution
didn't. So he wasn't apparently required to obey the Constitution and
come up with a full Cabinet. Back in July, Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observed,
"Shiite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has struggled to forge a lasting
power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet positions,
including the ministers of defense, interior and national security,
while his backers have also shown signs of wobbling support." Those
positions still haven't been filled. So Nouri is the Minister of
Interior currently.

Which is why, if the
Ministry of Interior is attempting to say that the attack took place
today at a demonstration, we need to stop a minute and ask what's going
on? What may be going on is that Nouri may be attempting to use this
attack to stop the protests, to declare them dangerous (he's called them
that since the start) and to try to outlaw them as a result. This is
not minor. Bloomberg News should have noted in their report that no one
else is saying that the attack took place at a demonstration. Again,
Nouri is repeatedly claiming that the protests are dangerous or that
they will be the object of danger in his attempt to shut them down. For
example, Abdulrahman al-Rashed (Al Arabiya) points out:

"The
government [of Iraq] has obtained high-level intelligence information
about plans to carry out terrorist attacks against protestors."You
have to be ignorant about geopolitics to believe the story of this
alleged intelligence, made public by an anonymous government source to
justify the closure of the border crossing with Jordan and the
subsequent damage inflicted upon the residents of al-Anbar.Had
the Maliki government enjoyed any credibility, we would have never
doubted its reasons for closing the vital crossing to Jordan, for
terrorism is a painful reality that still threatens Iraq. But Maliki's
government has decided to punish the people of al-Anbar, the province
raging with anger against him and leading the popular opposition
movement in Iraq.

MWC notes
he was inspecting a new road being constructed in southern Falluja and
quotes his chief of staff Sohaib Haqi stating, "The moment he stepped
out of the car to check out this road between Fallujah and Amriyah, at
this moment, there was a man. He came to him, hugged him, said Allahu
Akbar, and blew himself up." Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) reports,
"Lawmaker Ayfan Sadoon al-Essawi was visiting a construction site on a
commercial street in central Falluja on Tuesday when the bomber,
disguised as a laborer, approached him, authorities said." Qassim Abdul-Zahra (AP) reports,
"According to police, the lawmaker was inspecting a roadwork project
when his attacker, dressed as one of the construction workers,
approached and pretended that he was trying to shake hands before
blowing himself up." Again, why the (headless) Ministry of Defense is
allowed to speak on this issue is beyond me. It's also true that
al-Issawi and Nouri were political rivals and that he had criticized
Nouri's decision (last week) to shut down the road and port connecting
Iraq with Jordan and Syria.

Al Arabiya notes,
"Before his death, Saadoun said that Maliki's closing of the Terabeel
crossing to Jordan was wrong and can be described as an act of war
against Anbar and the Sunni people in thie country." They quote him
stating, "The closure of Teraibeel crossing is disastrous for us, and
this is like impsoing sanctions against the people of Anbar. This is a
declaration of war against the Sunnis and the province of Anbar. I
urged the parliament to form an emergency session to discuss security
and the closure of the crossing which I believe is a big mistake and
shouldn't be happening."

Baghdad, 15 January 2013 - The
Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General in Iraq
(SRSG), Martin Kobler, condemns in the strongest terms possible the
heinous killing of Anbar Member of Parliament, 'Ifan Al-Issawi, in a
terrorist attack in the middle of a demonstration in Fallujah, causing
the death and injury of a number of other persons.

The
SRSG reiterates that it is equally vital to peacefully demonstrate and
to protect protestors from infiltration of terrorists.

"I
call again on all political forces to foil any attempt at instigating
strife and to demonstrate utmost restraint," the SRSG said, adding that
political dialogue must be resumed without further delay to exit from
the current situation.

The SRSG extends his
sincere condolences to the families of Mr. Al-Issawi and of the other
victims, and wishes a speedy recovery to the wounded.

In addition, APA reports,
"Turkey strongly condemned a bombing attack that targeted and killed a
Sunni lawmaker in western Iraq on Tuesday amidst the festering tension
in the politically fragile country as protests against the central
government in Baghdad still continue in various cities." And Mohammed
Tawfeeq (CNN) Tweets:

All Iraq News reports that the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq Ammar Hakim is calling for dialogue to address the continued crisis. Alsumaria adds
that Anbar Provincial Council is selecting a delegation to send to
speak with cleric and movement leader Moqtada al-Sadr about ways to
resolve the current crisis or crises. Al Mada notes
that there is a call for a national conference. You may remember that
Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Speaker of Parliament Osama
al-Nujaifi have been calling for one since December 21st -- December
21st of 2011. Yes, the crisis has been going on that long.

On the topic of Jalal Talabani (currently in Germany following his December stroke), Hurriyet Daily News reports:Iraq
has been left much like a fatherless orphan because it has been
deprived of a president capable of listening to problems and conducting
mediation, one of the country's top Shiite leaders said yesterday."If
the problem of the presidency is not resolved, the dictatorship will
spread to the presidency from the prime ministry, and this would make
the situation worse and more problematic. Iraq is like a son without a
father because it does not have its president who deals with problems
and mediates," influential Shiite figure Muqtada al-Sadr said in
reference to the absence of President Jalal Talabani, who suffered a
stroke last month and was flown to Germany for treatment. His
ailing health has raised concerns about his political future while also
tipping off a new crisis in Iraq. The crisis has been worsened by weeks
of demonstrations against Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's rule in
mostly-Sunni areas, with protesters alleging that the premier has
misused anti-terror laws to wrongfully detain members of their
community.

An
Iranian lawmaker says the return of ailing Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani to the country's political stage will foil seditionist schemes
in Iraq's northern Kurdish region. "The return of Jalal Talabani to
Iraq's political arena can render ineffective the attempts made by the
seditionist countries in the region and the Western enemies of an
independent Iraq in order to drag the country into unrest,"
Mohammad-Saleh Jokar said on Tuesday.

Seditionist
countries? Mohammad-Saleh Jokar is among those repeating that the US
government is planning to split Iraq into three parts. Again, a
functioning White House would be aware of what was being said in the
Iraqi media and have a response before Iranian officials started
spreading the rumors even futher.

Yesterday's snapshot
noted that the press observed a few dozen prisoners and detainees
released. Leave it to the New York Times to run with a 300 figure as
fact and not a claim by the Iraqi government, leave it to the paper of
record to run with that and with nothing to back it up. Only four women
were released, however many people have been. And women were the
element that outraged so many. Equally true, yesterday's 'big release'
only released people who had already completed their sentencing or who
were nerver charged. Aswat al-Iraq reports
today, "Women State Minister Ibtihal al-Zaidi stressed today the
necessity to finalize the cases of the detained women as soon as
possible, as well as better condition in women prisons to meet their
humanistic needs [and . . .] urged the legal system to finalize all
cases, particularly un-convicted ones." Mushreq Abbas (Al-Monitor) explores the Iraqi 'justice' system in an essay which includes:

Returning
to the root of the term justice, Iraqi law was somewhat confused with
how to deal with the legal definition which could solve this conceptual
crisis. Even at present, Iraqis do not know whether using weapons
against U.S. forces between 2003 and 2012 was a criminal offense or not.
The American administration did not invest much effort in this matter
because of the volatile nature and general lack of law and order which
accompanied this troubled occupation.

As a
result of such a legal negligence, it became easy to try those accused
of violence against U.S. forces and treat them as criminals, and acquit
other defendants facing the same charges and treat them as heroes.

It
is no coincidence that Sunni leaders residing in Turkey and sentenced
to death in absentia on charges of murder, such as Hashemi, have
prompted the Iraqi government to declare Ankara's provision of sanctuary
an international crime, whereas other persons with ties to the
sectarian war, such as Abu Deraa, have resided in Tehran for years without causing any diplomatic strife with Iran.

Exploring
this argument will not lead to a clear conclusion, for it was never
intended to distinguish those who took part in the civil war from those
who abstained. If this were the case, it would be difficult to find one
Iraqi politician who had not participated in one form or another.
Moreover, this categorization overlooks the victims of the civil war and
of the violence in Iraq from different denominational backgrounds.

Following
are excerpts from a Jan. 12 release from the International
Anti-Occupation Network on recent developments in Iraq against the
regime that was put in power by the nine-year-long U.S. invasion and
occupation. The full release is at brussellstribunal.org.Massive
protests have taken place every day in Ramadi since Dec. 25, when more
than 200,000 people demonstrated. These protests have expanded further
to cities all over the country, in which hundreds of thousands have
participated. …A key element of the current protests has
been the slogan for national unity and an end to sectarianism, as well
as the denunciation of the [Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri] al-Maliki
regime's inability to meet these popular demands. Change is inevitable!The
protests are supported nationwide. Several Iraqi cities have sent
delegations to join the demonstrators in Ramadi. Shiite religious
leaders have encouraged the faithful to support the protests and there
is a strong presence of Kurdish delegations in Mosul, Tikrit and Anbar.
Symbols of political parties are avoided as much as possible to
reinforce the spirit of national unity. …The withdrawal of
U.S. combat troops from Iraq did not signify an end to occupation. The
U.S. footprint is still heavy. Accordingly, the Iraqi anti-occupation
movements are opposed to what they call "the second face of the
occupation." This implies continued resistance against all structures
imposed by the U.S. …Despite the violent repression of the
security forces and the militias of the sectarian political parties, the
Iraqi people have now gone beyond the frontier of fear. There is no
turning back.The International Occupation Network warns the
international community, including the United Nations and the European
Union, that there are serious indications that the regime is planning on
attacking Anbar [Province]. …The risk of major bloodshed is imminent,
a situation for which al-Maliki and the U.S. occupiers have been warned
that they will bear full responsibility if the demonstrators are
harmed.In this situation it is … of vital importance that all peace-loving forces support what is taking place on the streets of Iraq.The protesters are justly demanding:1. The immediate release of detained protesters and dissident prisoners.2 . A stop to the death penalty.3. The approval of an amnesty law for innocent detainees.4. The abolition of anti-terrorism laws (especially Clause 4 used to target them).5. The repeal of unfair rulings against dissidents.6. Fair opportunities for work based on professionalism.7.The end of the use of all military command based on geographic areas.8. The provision of essential services to all areas in Iraq neglected by the state.9.
The holding of all … governmental officials, army or security units who
have committed crimes against dissidents accountable, especially those
who have violated the honor of women in prisons.10. A U.N.-sponsored population count.11.
An end to marginalization, a stop to agitating divisions between ethnic
and religious groups, and a stop to the house raids without legal
warrant based on the information of secret informers.12. A stop to financial, administrative and legal corruption.13.
The combating of sectarianism in all its forms by returning religious
buildings and all religious properties to their rightful owners, and the
abolishment of law No. 19 of 2005.The International
Occupation Network (IAON) welcomes the spread of these non-sectarian
protests and supports the efforts of the Iraqi people to regain their
full independence and national sovereignty. Ten years of foreign
occupation is enough! Ten years of massive human rights violations is
enough! Ten years of corruption and depriving the whole population of
basic services is enough!— The International Anti-Occupation Network / IAONArticles
copyright 1995-2013 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution is
permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is
preserved.